Liberty is the right of individuals to act as they choose. The term can be employed either individually or in connection with the achievement of sovereignty by a people. Although in these senses liberty may be civil or political, the modern concept further includes a generalized body of rights, such as the right to economic opportunity and education. If liberty is left unrestricted, however, it could lead to the systematic violation of other people’s liberty, or anarchy, or perhaps even chaos. Therefore, the following authors discuss the degree of liberty which governments should allow individuals to possess.
According to Mill
In terms of liberty, Mill is a firm believer that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.” Therefore, man should be allowed to act freely without any form of governmental interference as long as he is not hurting anyone (is the problem just governmental interference? - xmarquez Oct 11, 2006). Mill believes that man should “if he refrains from molesting others…be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinion into practice at his own cost.” This gives man a great deal of freedom of action and speech. (Doesn't this depend on how we define what constitutes "harm"? - xmarquez Oct 11, 2006)
The purpose of these freedoms is to foster “originality.” Only through originality can man break “the despotism of custom,” which is “standing hinderance to human advancement.” Mill’s logic follows that that if everyone always follows the same traditions (which are kept because they proved helpful at some point) then new and better ones will never be created. Societal progress is, therefore, tied to the innovative genius of individuality.
Mill assures that the government and society itself properly directed the almost boundless freedom of man “to promote the good of others” by. The government should guarantee that no man uses his freedom to directly harm someone else. And society will use its moral stigmas to dissuade individuals from performing “may be hurtful to others […] without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights” (There could be a section on Tocqueville's view of liberty, and perhaps also the later authors for our course - xmarquez Oct 29, 2006)
According to Tocqueville
Tocqueville had much to say about liberty and its relationship to American democracy. He viewed liberty as both protection from oprpressive governmentsand also as an asset that each citizen has a responsibility to exercise. Tocqueville was also quick to note that too much individual liberty could be dangerous. He believed liberty needed to to be regulated "by beliefs, mores and laws." Essentially, Tocqueville viewed liberty and authority in a twofold manner- liberty was a defense against authority and authority was a defense against liberty. In an effort to keep authority legitimate, Tocqueville supported a system in which citizens exercised liberty to vote for quailified individuals to represent them.
Liberty
Liberty is the right of individuals to act as they choose. The term can be employed either individually or in connection with the achievement of sovereignty by a people. Although in these senses liberty may be civil or political, the modern concept further includes a generalized body of rights, such as the right to economic opportunity and education. If liberty is left unrestricted, however, it could lead to the systematic violation of other people’s liberty, or anarchy, or perhaps even chaos. Therefore, the following authors discuss the degree of liberty which governments should allow individuals to possess.
According to Mill
In terms of liberty, Mill is a firm believer that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.” Therefore, man should be allowed to act freely without any form of governmental interference as long as he is not hurting anyone (is the problem just governmental interference? -The purpose of these freedoms is to foster “originality.” Only through originality can man break “the despotism of custom,” which is “standing hinderance to human advancement.” Mill’s logic follows that that if everyone always follows the same traditions (which are kept because they proved helpful at some point) then new and better ones will never be created. Societal progress is, therefore, tied to the innovative genius of individuality.
Mill assures that the government and society itself properly directed the almost boundless freedom of man “to promote the good of others” by. The government should guarantee that no man uses his freedom to directly harm someone else. And society will use its moral stigmas to dissuade individuals from performing “may be hurtful to others […] without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights”
(There could be a section on Tocqueville's view of liberty, and perhaps also the later authors for our course -
According to Tocqueville
Tocqueville had much to say about liberty and its relationship to American democracy. He viewed liberty as both protection from oprpressive governmentsand also as an asset that each citizen has a responsibility to exercise. Tocqueville was also quick to note that too much individual liberty could be dangerous. He believed liberty needed to to be regulated "by beliefs, mores and laws." Essentially, Tocqueville viewed liberty and authority in a twofold manner- liberty was a defense against authority and authority was a defense against liberty. In an effort to keep authority legitimate, Tocqueville supported a system in which citizens exercised liberty to vote for quailified individuals to represent them.